Laws of Nature Philosophy Discussion

Do you think that laws of nature, insofar as they exist in reality, reduce fully to contingent events such that laws contain no necessity? Or do you think that laws cannot be so reduced and are necessary regularities that ‘govern’ events? (If you support anti-realism about laws you can defend that view too, but you may find there is little difference between reductionism about laws and anti-realism since both agree that there are no such things as necessary regularities in nature). Be sure to explain (1) the best argument for your view (it is up to you to determine what argument that is and to explain why you think it is the best), (2) the best argument against your view (also up to do you determine and to justify your choice), and (3) your own response to the argument against your view. Use your own examples and illustrations when possible. Be sure to relate your discussion at relevant points to claims or statements made by Carroll, Schaffer, Hume, and/or any of the philosophers and scientists in the “Closer to Truth” episodes, but don’t feel like you have to rehash or summarize their entire papers/discussions.